Category Archives: morality

Why Aren’t They

Posted on by
1

…fired for cause?

The Department of Veterans Affairs said Friday two high-ranking officials were finally demoted in response to a federal probe that found they manipulated the agency’s personnel system for their own gain, but a key lawmaker is asking why they weren’t prosecuted.

The two high-ranking officials are Diana Rubens, director of VBA’s Philadelphia regional office, and Kimberly Graves, director of VBA’s St Paul regional office. The behavior of these two women (I won’t call them “ladies;” their behavior has established what they are, and they’ve already named their price) warrants termination for cause.

Congressman Jeff Miller’s (R, FL) question—he’s the “key lawmaker”—is an entirely valid one, too. Their behavior seems criminal enough to warrant that type of investigation, too.

And my own question: what has taken the VA so long to do even this trivial hand-slap? Even the original October move (allegedly having to be redone due to “administrative error”) was far too slow in coming. What’s the VA’s excuse [sic] here?

Veteranos administratio delende est

Personal Secrecy vs National Security

Posted on by
Reply

The latest batch of 3,105 emails includes 275 documents upgraded to “classified” since they landed in the former Secretary’s personal inbox. That brings the total number of classified docs found in the emails to 1,274. A State Department official told Fox News on Thursday that two of those emails were upgraded to “secret,” while most of the others were upgraded to “confidential.”

Because Democratic Party Presidential candidate and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire to keep her doings in our name as a Cabinet Secretary were more important than our national security.

We don’t need four more years of this from within the White House.

A Japanese Apology

Posted on by
1

Following Japan’s apology to the Republic of Korea over “comfort women,” the People’s Republic of China is demanding the same for itself.

The problem is this. When one nation repeatedly and incessantly demands an apology from another, the apology-demander can never take the apology as anything other than the result of an exercise of power over the apology-giver, no matter the sincerity of the apology. This is especially true in the present case, with the PRC cavalierly dismissing the Japanese apology to the RoK as American puppetry.

The apology-demander can never view the apology as anything other than a lie, square filler that it is. That renders the apology less than a waste of time for the apology-giver; the apology is reduced to a surrender of sovereignty (even if a small amount)—an act of puppetry—to the apology-demander.

Japan would do well to ignore the PRC’s incessant demands and only after the matter has died down for some considerable time make an apology, unbidden. If one is warranted.

Two Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Thirty-five years ago (nearly two generations ago), the People’s Republic of China government decreed that families in the PRC could have only one child. Ostensibly, this was to reduce population pressures on the country’s ability to feed itself. It’s also had, though, other consequences. One of them is this:

China has the world’s largest population at 1.37 billion, but its working-age population—those aged 15 to 64—is shrinking. The United Nations projects the number of Chinese people over the age of 65 will jump 85% to 243 million by 2030, up from 131 million this year.

That’s a doubling of the old-age population in just the 15 years it’ll take this year’s newly born babies to reach working age. Is the raise in the number of permitted babies per family to two sufficient to alleviate the problems brought on by the shrinking work force, with its reduced ability to produce goods and services, and food; or the problems brought on by a shrinking work force’s ability to pay for, in any way, the growing (relative to the working population as well as in absolute terms) population of elderly?

Many Chinese couples say the cost of having children is prohibitive, and some will opt to have only one child. A previous relaxation of China’s one-child policy did not lead to a significant increase in baby numbers.

“Many” is more than it sounds; it’s a significant fraction of today’s couples.

On top of that, though, most demographers say it takes 2.1 babies per woman (not just to women in marriages) just to maintain a population at a given level for developed nations. That minimum rate rises in less developed nations, as infant mortality rates rise. The PRC’s new limit of 2 babies per family (not all women) doesn’t reach the replacement rate.

Probably the raise in the limit on the number of permitted babies is insufficient.

For the Children

Posted on by
Reply

Liberals love their programs “for the children;” albeit they’re carefully paid for with OPM. Take, for instance Michelle Obama’s school lunch program, which has become a Federal government mandate—carefully paid for by the States and the school districts. But never mind, it’s for the children.

Now we get this. A food service worker in the Irving Middle School in Pocatello, ID, gave a lunch to a 12-yr-old girl who had no money to pay for it. The lunch cost all of $1.70, and the food service worker offered to pay the bill for the child.

No dice, said District 25 Director of Human Resources, Susan Petit. You’re fired, she said in her letter telling the worker that she’d been fired.

It’s for the children.

Update: The Pocatello/Chubbuck School District No 25 has apparently released a statement (it’s not available on the District’s Web site as I write this) that offers the food service worker her job back.  Buried at the bottom of the 600+ word statement was this sentence:

The District has been in communication with Ms. Bowden extending an opportunity for her to return to employment with the District.

However, as of last night, the food service worker hadn’t actually heard anything from the District, much less anything about the details of this “opportunity.”